View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:56 pm

Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Two perspectives in conflict?! 
Author Message

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:59 am
Posts: 3
Location: Finland
Post Two perspectives in conflict?!
I think, that a major problem with the analytical approach is its focus, displaced from a holistic viewpoint to general explanation factors. Rather than understanding human social groups in business organizations in all their ramifications, the analytical view is focusing on narrow general concerns. This not only diverts attention from what are essential concerns, but it directs the attention to model concerns rather than empirical/conceptual (essential) concerns. How can we bridge this conflict between what is general and what is essential if we want to apply both perspectives in the same study. :?: :?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:10 pm

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 3
Post Re: Two perspectives in conflict?!
It is my firm belief that you cannot "bridge" the view through the analytical view on one hand and a holistic view on the other just like that. They are simply two different and incomprehensible ways of looking at reality.

Metodologicus :ugeek:

Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:30 am

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:31 pm
Posts: 4
Location: Norway
Post Re: Two perspectives in conflict?!
“Metodologicus” claims that you can’t “bridge”. But I think, in your case, the Principle of Complementarity gives you the opportunity to use either the systems approach or the actors approach as transformative operator. See also my answer: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9. :!:


Mon May 10, 2010 6:12 pm

Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:53 am
Posts: 1
Post Re: Two perspectives in conflict?!
Points of contention -

working conditions,
the right to form a union,
the right to strike,
job security,
working hours,
worker/management relations.
share of the profits
Basically, in a large company, thousands of people work hard and the company makes a profit. This profit is then divided. The workers get a fairly small, fixed amount (wages) and the owners (share-holders) get the rest. But the share-holders did no work for their money. The main struggle of the working class has been a struggle to get a more equal share of the profits produced by their labor.

Perspective of Labor: There is a phrase called a 'wage slave'. We use this phrase to describe a poor worker who works 40 hours a week to make justenough money to pay for rent, food, clothes, petrol, bills etc. But they do not earn enough to have any money left over at the end of the week. In other words, all the wages given to them by the capitalist system are immediately taken away again by the capitalist system. A wage slave invests their whole life in the system but ends up with nothing. All the profits of the system are taken from the worker and given to people in high paying jobs (management) or share-holders. And the worker is unable to pay for advantages for their children, making it almost certain that their children will also be a wage slave.

Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:19 am
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:16 pm
Posts: 4
Post Re: Two perspectives in conflict?!
Lucas wrote:
Points of contention

I think you misunderstood the question.

Are you frizzyperm who posted the exact same post here?

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:48 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 5 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.